Selected Notes from the Council Meeting of September 13th 2010

This was a very full meeting of contrasting items.

1. The Needs Assessment Update on the Homeless Shelter presented by Captain Kirk Green, Conner Stewart and Al Campbell was most informative and positive. Good progress is being made in achieving the goal of a Shelter and Centre for the homeless people of Cranbrook. The focus of this presentation was the completion of a Needs Assessment. With an 85% urban population in BC and with Cranbrook being the regional centre for this part of BC, it is apparent Cranbrook has a responsibility and need to fill. It is estimated that in Cranbrook there are several hundred resident homeless. 112 men and 145 women have been identified. An even more shocking statistic of 50 to 70 children being impacted by difficult financial circumstance and inadequate living conditions was presented. This hard working coalition of different agencies including the City of Cranbrook, The Salvation Army, Community Foundation and BC Housing continues to work towards bringing this housing facility/centre to reality. It was pointed out that an investment of this kind would help reverse the downward spiral of desperation that comes with poverty. The health and well-being of those who work in the Social Services will also benefit by the possibility of actually being able to offer tangible help and hope. The committee sees the Shelter as an investment in the social fabric of Cranbrook.



2. Initial Discussion of The Growth Management Study showed up several items of concern.

· That the city faces an infrastructure deficit over the next few years of approximately 70 million dollars.

· Availability of Commercial Lands was a focus item for several councillors. However from Volume 1 page 22 of the Growth Management Study comes the statement,

Based on the foregoing assumptions, it is surmised that the current City boundary has

the capacity to house a population of approximately 36,000 or approximately double the

current population. At an average annual growth rate of 1.2%, it would take 57 years for

the City to reach a population of 36,000.

This information along with the potential for more commercial lands, not yet recognised needs to be reconciled.

· The Complexity of the document will require a 6 to 12 month assessment by staff.  Does this mean the public will not have the opportunity for comment before this time lapse?



3. Of interest to many was a report recommendation made by the city to the RDEK in reference to Area C’s (Rockyview) Official Community Plan.

Bylaw No. 2255, RDEK Referral Proposed Rockyview (Area C) Official Community Plan gave rise to some serious discussion. A clause that advised against the building of roads though the Community Forest has apparently been removed at the City’s request. In its place the request has been made to the RDEK by the city that the OCP (the official Planning Document for the area adjacent to city boundaries) be in compliance with the Kootenay Boundary Land Use Plan. One of the elements this high level plan deals with is, roads. Mayor Manjak’s comment in reference to the Community Forest Lands that “This piece of land was never intended to block any long term growth of the city” naturally gives rise to speculation. When questioned, Mayor Manjak said there was no hidden agenda in the request for reference to the Kootenay Boundary Land Use Plan. However it is common knowledge that the Community Forest is very highly valued by many residents of this community. No matter the original intent of this piece of Crown Land, as a Demonstration Forest or otherwise, the fact that it has become an integral part of the vitality, well-being and health of our community makes communication and assurance about its intended future of prime importance to many citizens. Mayor Manjak also commented that in the interests of long term needs for this community he felt the proposed recommendation for inclusion of the Kootenay Boundary Land Use Plan was important and made sense. He also went on to say “The only logical lands for growth are the East Hill Lands”. This statement would seem premature when earlier in this meeting it was stated that staff would need to take 6 to 12 months to analyse the Growth Management Study which contains the projected infrastructure costs should growth occur in any one direction.

Developers and or agent who were originally interested in the developments of the East Hill were present at this meeting of Council. It would be interesting to hear their thoughts on this issue.